Travis Kalanick was the founding CEO of the ride-sharing giant Uber. Under his leadership, Uber has become a globally successful firm with a valuation over $60 billion. Kalanick is in his early forties, but Uber is the third firm that he started. Earlier in his career he founded the file-sharing company Scour which ended up going bankrupt due to lawsuits. He had more success with another file-sharing company called Red Swoosh which he later sold for $19 million.
In spite of all of his accomplishments and success, he has always been a controversial CEO. Recently he was caught on video berating an Uber driver, a video that went viral. He has also faced allegations of fostering a toxic corporate culture. After facing a continuing wave of negative publicity, Kalanick had to step aside as CEO, but remains as a powerful member of Uber’s Board of Directors. He is also still one of their major shareholders, so even though another CEO will be managing the day-to-day, affairs he is likely to remain as a major leader within Uber.
For this paper you should first thoroughly review the background readings and make sure you are clear on the distinction between charismatic, transformational, and transactional leadership. Then do some research on Travis Kalanick’s leadership style. There is no shortage of articles about Travis Kalanick and Uber. But harder to find are articles on what kind of leader he is and how he leads his employees. Here are a few articles to get you started, but if you can find articles that are more recent or have more information about his leadership style, feel free to use them in your paper instead:
Hook, L. (2017, March 10). Uber: The crisis inside the “cult of Travis.” Financial Times, p. 11. [ProQuest]
Somerville, H. (2017, April 13). Uber CEO’s iron grip poses challenge in COO search. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-governance/uber-ceos-iron-grip-poses-challenge-in-coo-search-idUSKBN17F1CO?il=0
Fast Company. (2015, September 25). Travis Kalanick, the fall and spectacular rise of the man behind Uber. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1860723/travis-kalanick-fall-and-spectacular-rise-man-behind-uber
After you have reviewed the background materials and done some research on Travis Kalanick, write a 4- to 5-page paper addressing the issues below. Make sure to cite both required background readings such as Barine and Minja (2012) or Luthans et al. (2015) as well as specific articles on Travis Kalanick.
Does Travis Kalanick meet the definition of a charismatic leader based on what you’ve read? Explain your answer using both the required background textbook readings as well as specific information you found about Kalanick.
Does Travis Kalanick meet the definition of a transformational leader based on what you’ve read? Explain your answer using both the required background textbook readings as well as specific information you found about Kalanick.
Does Travis Kalanick meet the definition of a transactional leader based on what you’ve read? Explain your answer using both the required background textbook readings as well as specific information you found about Kalanick.
Overall, what do you believe are the main benefits and drawbacks of Travis Kalanick’s approach to leadership? Do you think he needs to make major changes in his leadership style?
Maybe it is protected to induce from the earliest starting point that there does not have all the earmarks of being a nation on the planet that isn't influenced or has not been influenced in one way or the other by the United States of America. Shy of this, there definitely does not stay in presence a nation, individuals or society which has no learning, anyway constrained, of the United States of America. No single day goes without the American power being tended to or analyzed in one limit or the other by the worldwide media. After some time, yet specifically, in later occasions, no other nation's political, household, financial resistance or capacities and capacities have been more contemplated or talked about than the degree at which America has been. In established truth, it is sheltered to infer that not many political issues today incite such solid and different reactions as the job of the United States of America in its endeavor to re-shape world affairs. The ongoing psychological militant assault on America of grave results, its response to it and the wars in Afghanistan just as Iraq have escalated the discussion about the nature and prospects of American super power. There remains a school of believed that keeps on praising the United States' accomplishments in broadcasting just as bringing freedom, majority rules system and flourishing to each edge of the world. Others are increasingly disposed towards judgment of America's quest for domineering status and its endeavor to force a solitary monetary framework and a thin arrangement of good conviction on different countries around the globe. Whichever school of thought one has a place with re America's execution on the worldwide platform, most have touched base at the end that the historical backdrop of the twenty-first century will be resolved to a vast degree by the manner in which American power is utilized, and by the manner by which other major political players on the global front respond to it. The country has regularly been alluded to as a majestic, a domain or authority. The vast majority still keep on seeing America as that popularity based place where there is roses where 'anything can occur'. Some still put stock in, particularly those outside the shores of the nation and stressing to one day be conceded into the incredible nation, what they call the 'American Dream'. It is as far as anyone knows a nation where 'the sky is the limit'. Regularly be that as it may, America is never again viewed with rose tinted displays. Given its ongoing history world over, this is not really a shock of any essentialness. The word which best strikes a chord when America, that extraordinary country is under talk as it continually is for differing reasons, is authority. What, it may be valuable to enquire at this crossroads, is authority? In layman's terms, authority, briefly put, is administration by transcendence (some may even say hostility) of littler and more fragile states or countries by normally greater countries with an end goal to accomplish global control. Does America in this manner stand properly blamed for endeavoring to command the world through its conceptualisation of worldwide legislative issues, remote arrangements and military, or if nothing else to overwhelm those countries which are viewed as littler and more fragile? Usually learning that while a few nations practice socialism or communism, America was and remains an industrialist nation where the witticism directly after 'In God We Trust' is an all around acknowledged however implicit 'survival of the fittest'. In the early on expressions of G. John Ikenberry in his book 'America Unrivaled', "The pr-prominence of American power today is exceptional in present day history. No other extraordinary power has appreciated such considerable points of interest in military, financial, mechanical, social or political capacities. We live in a one-super power world, and there is no genuine challenge in sight" These words quickly infer maybe the most disputable wars everything being equal and America's tremendous commitment or one may even set out say explicit resolute coordination of the equivalent, the Iraqi attack (and on-going war till date) in 2003. It merits thinking back at this point how the world watched and held up anxiously while the United Nations thought on whether the United States ought to be allowed the authorisation to attack Iraq dependent on its reports about the alleged vile forces that be and the weapons of mass pulverization they as far as anyone knows had really taking shape which it further asserted presented un-predicted dangers to the worldwide world. It is one more point for the contention that America is quick getting to be or in reality has everything except achieved the status of an authoritative express that President George W. Shrub reported to the world that paying little respect to the UN's choice and that of its Member States, America will move forward in war against Iraq and Afghanistan, alone in the event that they needed to. In his careful words, "… with regards to our security, we truly needn't bother with anybody's permission" It was later contended that no doubt even the United Nations, an alleged world arbitrator and worldwide seal of harmony, is only one more device in America's as of now overflowing tool compartment. In spite of the fact that at the time, this declaration from the Bush Administration sounded as haughty and 'exempt from the laws that apply to everyone else' as it truly might have been, there were numerous who felt America would be legitimized in its choice in the wake of the September 11 assault. September 11 2001 (henceforth alluded to as 9/11) realized the defining moment ever, worldwide law and the utilization of power against fear mongering. The expressions of an American man considered devoted in fact strikes a chord at this dubious position of George W. Bramble re forgetting about the world's supposition and/endorsement to its utilization of power for the sake of battling psychological oppression. The man, none other than Richard Holbrooke, previous United States envoy to the United Nations, who once expressed after cautious perception, one ought to envision, that the Bush organization takes steps to make a "radical break with 55 years of a bipartisan custom that looked for universal understandings and routines of advantage to us" Many years, loss of lives both non military personnel and military, reports of loathsome medicines allotted to detainees of war (PWO) by the American fighters against each standard of Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Convention, America's refusal to pull back its troops even after the fall of Saddam Hussein (its most noteworthy adversary) the inquiry on everybody's lips is whether the war was undoubtedly for all the selfless reasons cited by America in its somewhat manufactured reports or for more reasons nearer to home. The inquiry can even be represented right back to Operation Desert Storm in a similar Iraq in 1993. Did America attack Iraq on the two events for financial increase and at last to put itself as the world's super power. In spite of the fact that it shows up now to the world that the Bush organization is the one in charge of drastically drawing America far from multilateralism, a think once more into the Clinton organization will affirm this isn't remotely valid. Under the Clinton organization, America neither hung tight for the United Nation's endorsement/authorisation before conveying the North Atlantic Treaty Operation (NATO) to Serbia in 1999 nor preceding its bomb assault on Iraq in 1998. There were likewise different Conventions, Acts and Treaties America rather prominently avoided marking or endorsing, for example, the restricting of further utilization of Land Mines (the Ottawa Convention of 1997). The distinction maybe would be the place the Clinton organization received discretion in its conveyance of such one-sided choices; the Bush organization basically continues onward with no respect for the world's feeling, endorsement or as a rule dissatisfaction. In the period following the World War (II), America's quality was not just seen amid the war with the sending of its military, which later shaped a coalition with the United Kingdom among others (the unified powers) yet additionally after the war in its endeavor to reconstruct Germany just as other war torn nations in the war consequence. In this, America had strategised and was obviously effective in guaranteeing that the world did not return to its shut provincial dealings of the 1930s before the war. The establishing of the United Nations on 24 October 1945 additionally made sure that the start of what is presently known as globalization was built up. A post war time of multilateral character and hugeness was along these lines worked around financial and security understandings, for example, the Bretton Woods Agreement on fiscal just as exchange relations among countries. The American-drove NATO security settlement pursued a lot later. This global request which appeared after the war (World War II) was viably one which was multilateral in character. An increasingly open arrangement of exchange and speculations started to develop, to a great extent supported by America. Financial and security matters just as political relations ended up vague and inseparable among countries in what is best depicted as an open world market or globalization. This is clear in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) just as the Bretton Woods understanding prior referenced. A partnership tie rose between the United States and the Great Britain specifically and the European mainland all in all in a situation one could essentially put in layman's terms 'rub my back and I will rub yours'. America's financial just as security help to the Asian district is additionally worth referencing. America guaranteed and proceeds so to do, that more fragile and littler states are managed security help, assurance and allowed access to its business sectors, innovation and nation by and large. In the wake of America's Green Card Lottery conspire, the help and reverence of other littler states for which the plan was expected and who keeps on profiting by the equivalent was solidly verified. In a comparative vein after the world war, natives of numerous countries rushed in their thousands to Am>GET ANSWER